Political scientists from UCLA compare candidates based on 'competence' Most students interpreted 'competence' as 'attractiveness' Mitt Romney scored in the 99th percentile, Sarah Palin in the 95th and Paul Ryan in the 67th 'If the election were decided on looks, it would be no contest'

Republican duo Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are one of the hottest tickets this nation has ever seen, and now there's proof that its not just their politics.

According to professors at the University of California, Mitt Romney scores in the 99th percentile of all politicians for his looks alone, far outpacing his running mate Paul Ryan, whose rock hard abs only earned him a spot in the 67th percentile.

The study was conducted to measure the 'competence' of politicians and how much, if any, their attractiveness affected the outcomes of their elections...

We know that it has something to do with policies — but, there are hundreds (or thousands) of policy wonks, for every electable one. On just the basis of policy wonkiness, there are probably a few thousand FReepers that qualify for high office. Also, wonks can be hired (or fired) as needed. Clearly, wonkiness isn’t the most important factor in winning in politics.

We know that the winning formula has something to do with “charisma” — but, what is charisma? If you believe the MSM, it’s something Obama has, but Romney lacks. Clearly, most FReepers don’t think Obama is charismatic — whatever he has, we just hope it isn’t communicable.

We know that the winning formula has something to do with “attractiveness” — but, what is attractiveness, and how important is it? In this age of visual images, attractiveness probably counts for more than it ever did. Today’s received wisdom says that Nixon’s 5 o’clock shadow cost him the election against Kennedy. Kennedy was the first “Television President”. Attractiveness mattered a lot then, it no doubt matters even more today. This study might shed some light on the subject. It might be something that political operatives can use to help select a “winning candidate”.

You don’t have to like any of it (I don’t either) — but, that doesn’t make the study brainless.

I guess Romney can be deemed ‘attractive’ in some quarters. But it’s in a sort of department-store mannequin way. He reminds me of someone who might be cast as a caracature of a politician in an old sitcom. Handsome, says the right things, but awfully plastic.

I agree it’s definately something worth studying. I always found it an interesting topic. Even though, personally, I often find myself a little out-of-sync with some of the things that sway much of the populace. I find I’m usually attracted to leaders not so much for physical characteristics, but those who seem to be ‘least’ like politicians, in their manner. One of the reasons I was probably initially so open to both Reagan and Palin, who both at times almost seemed like the opposite of typical politicians. Even though I did not support or vote for him, I was even drawn a bit to Perot because of this.

“I guess Romney can be deemed attractive in some quarters. But its in a sort of department-store mannequin way. He reminds me of someone who might be cast as a caracature of a politician in an old sitcom. Handsome, says the right things, but awfully plastic.”

I’m going to make a risky “stereotype” extrapolation.

Three Mormon men have ben present during my lifetime:

My uncle was a career Army Officer, husband, father of three

A neighbor during high school, now an MD (Stanford, UCLA medical, honor roll), husband, father

My next door neighbor, lawyer, husband, father of three.

All three lifelong Mormons, one marriage, no juveline delinquency I know of for the children. Very serious in demeanor. I think this goes with the cultural norm for adult male Mormon men.

For these three and for Romney, loosening up, casual, humorous only comes with some effort.

My two male cousins (sons of uncle) left Mormonism, but they have most of the same seriousness, stiffness, as their dad.

It is a cultural thing, like Victorian age Britain, or Puritan age New England.

I think you have a good point, and I’ve often considered that to be the case. I actually like the old-fashioned, button-down, quiet-strength that used to define maleness in the first half of the 20th Century. I relish it, whether in my memories of my family members, or watching it on display in old movies. The weak, metrosexual ‘maleness’ as it is now defined in the culture turns my stomach.

So, ostensibly I should be more open and forgiving towards Romney. But with him, there’s a certain distant aloofness that makes me feel uncomfortable, although sometimes I wonder if this is partly being driven by my knowledge and disapproval of his liberal history. Reagan, Palin, or even Perot... I’d be quite at ease in a foxhole under fire, with them by my side. Can’t say this about 95% of politicians, and that includes some pretty good ones when it comes to issues and stances.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.